G.R. No. 257358 . December 05, 2022.
ATTY. MOISES DE GUIA DALISAY, JR., PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN MINDANAO AND ATTY. DEXTER REY T. SUMAOY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Moises De Guia Dalisay, Jr. filed an Affidavit-Complaint against private respondent Atty. Dexter Rey T. Sumaoy, the City Administrator of Iligan City. The complaint alleged that on August 1 and 14, 2017, private respondent appeared as private counsel for John Philip Aragon Burlado in a libel case before the RTC, using a government vehicle for travel, in violation of Administrative Order No. 239, and falsified his Daily Time Record (DTR) for August 2017 by making it appear he worked full-time on those dates. The charges included violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification), Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and violation of AO 239. Private respondent countered that Iligan City Mayor Celso G. Regencia authorized him to engage in private practice and serve as counsel for the city, and that his appearance for Burlado was temporary, ordered by the Mayor because the case arose from Burlado’s official duties as a City Information Office employee. He presented a Memorandum from Mayor Regencia and Approved Requests to Travel for the dates in question. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed both the criminal and administrative charges for insufficiency of evidence in a Joint Resolution dated May 16, 2019, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Joint Order dated October 16, 2020. The present petition for certiorari assails only the dismissal of the criminal charges for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and Article 171 of the RPC.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in not finding probable cause to charge private respondent with violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and Article 171 of the RPC.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Court’s power of judicial review over the Ombudsman’s findings in criminal cases is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion, which is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to prove any specific act or omission by the Ombudsman showing such capricious or whimsical judgment. The Ombudsman’s findings were supported: private respondent’s travels and court appearances were duly approved and made upon the directive of Mayor Regencia. Applying the presumption of regularity, his use of a government vehicle was considered official and legal, and his DTRs could not be considered falsified as he acted in good faith following the Mayor’s order. Consequently, the elements for Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC and for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (requiring manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence) were not established. The Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally-granted investigatory and prosecutorial discretion was not tainted with grave abuse.